AI-generated transcript of MCHSBC Full Committee

[Jenny Graham]: Hi, everyone. We'll give everyone a few more minutes to hop on. All right, why don't we go ahead and get started? Thanks everyone for joining us. Please be advised that there'll be a full committee meeting of the Medford Conference of High School Building Committee held via remote participation only on Wednesday, July 22nd at 6.30. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools YouTube channel and through Medford Community Media on your local cable channel. which is Comcast 98 or 22 and Verizon 43, 45 or 47. The meeting is being recorded and participants can call or log in using the following meeting ID. It's 995-5898-3187. The public is welcome to speak at our meeting this evening. Comments will be limited to three minutes per individual and only to those matters on the agenda. Speakers may speak only one time on each topic and we may limit comments to two minutes based on the number of individuals wishing to speak and we'll let people know as soon as that becomes necessary. Um, the public is encouraged to reach out in multiple ways. Um, there's an email address to get an official response by the project team. Um, if people have questions about something they hear, um, and that's mhsprojectatmedford.k12.ma.us. And, um, if people have comments or perspectives they want to share with all members of the building committee directly, um, That email is mchsbc at medford.k12.ma.us. So I'm gonna start by calling the roll. Jenny Graham here. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Present. Dr. Galussi. Present. Marta Cabral. Joan Bowen.

[Libby Brown]: Here.

[Jenny Graham]: Ken Lord. Here. Libby Brown. Here. Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsey here. Brian Hilliard here. Emily Lazzaro, Paul Malone, Nicole Morell here. Erin Olapade here. Luke Preissner here. Bob Dickinson.

[Libby Brown]: He's on vacation.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Um, Fiona Maxwell. Hi, Fiona.

[Libby Brown]: Hi, Chad Fallon.

[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Talbot. Here. Will Pipiselli. Lori Hodgson.

[Maria D'Orsi]: Here.

[Jenny Graham]: John McLaughlin. Paul Rousseau.

[Unidentified]: Here.

[Jenny Graham]: Phil Santos. And Lisa Miller. Here. 13 present, sorry, 12 present, three absent. We have a quorum. Welcome, everybody. The next item on the agenda is approval of the meeting minutes from our last meeting in the middle of June. Is there a motion to approve?

[Luke Preisner]: Motion to approve.

[Jenny Graham]: By Brian.

[Luke Preisner]: Seconded.

[Jenny Graham]: By Luke. I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galussi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Paul Malone. Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade.

[Luke Preisner]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Luke Presner.

[Luke Preisner]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: 12 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, three absent. The minutes are approved. Item number three on our agenda is approval of our June 2026 invoices. So we have a left field invoice for $20,000 and then SMMA invoices for 90,045,375 for a total of 155,375. I'm gonna turn it over to left field.

[Adele Sands]: Thank you so much. So as outlined, we are looking for total approval in the amount of $155,375 this evening. And as you can see just below that invoice breakout, this is where we stand with the feasibility study budget, and it does include the invoices above. So all invoices submitted to date are in line with the contracts and amendments that have been approved for this project. We do feel that overall we are in a very good position budget-wise as we move into schematic design. So we are looking for that approval tonight in the amount of $155,375. Are there any questions about the invoices

[Jenny Graham]: Is there a motion to approve?

[Kenneth Lord]: So moved.

[Jenny Graham]: By Ken, is there a second? Seconded, Maria. Bye, Maria. I will call the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Dr. Galusi? Yes. Marta Cabral? Joan Bowen?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Ken Lord?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Marissa Desmond? Maria Dorsey? Yes. Brian Hilliard?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro, Paul Malone, Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron Lapate.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Luke Preissner.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: 12 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, 3 absent. The invoices are approved. All right, moving right along. The next item on the agenda of hopefully quick items is approval of an amendment for SMMA to cover geothermal PV solar design, pool design, consulting and testing. And I will turn it over to the SMMA team to talk about these items.

[Kimberly Talbot]: Sure, thanks, Jenny. Yeah, these are consultants that we, some of them were waiting in the wings during the early feasibility portion of the project. But now that we have a firm grasp of where we're headed, and certainly knowing that we are renovating the pool, see a really critical need for pool consultants. And we also have an opportunity on August 3, to do some really important testing on the pool when it is drained. So kind of going from the bottom up, we have asked for proposals from Thompson and Lichner. They would do pool scanning of the pool basin and deck. Fillion, which is a known entity, I believe, to the district and already services the equipment on some of the pump testing. And then we have a proposal that's broken into two pieces from aquatic design group. This is a pool consulting firm we've worked with on two previous projects, and you'll see that one is for basic SD for the renovation of the existing pool, an additional separated out number for if The SBC does proceed with adding the new learn to swim basin. The PV consultant solar design associates also done a lot of work with them in the past. And certainly we are at a point where we need to really dig into the scope for PV. And then finally, geothermal consulting. This was a proposal that at the outset was much higher in the original proposal and the other reimbursables category. It had included the BOR itself, the test BOR, which we will be proceeding with under a grant with MassCEC. So Haley and Aldrich has broken their services down to consulting, and then if there's additional modeling needed, we just wanted those two separated pieces broken out in case we don't need that additional modeling. In total, and we did our best to put this into a single amendment, so we didn't have to keep bothering you all, but this is what we do know of right now to help us properly develop schematic design with the help of these consultants.

[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Helen. I had just one question. Item E, the pool design for the new basin, will that be held in terms of an approval until that decision is made by this group? Because I think there's still discussion to be had about that new basin.

[Kimberly Talbot]: Yeah, we can certainly do that if you want us to remove this from the amendment, or we could ask for the approval and then only activate that cost if you decide to proceed. It's up to you.

[Jenny Graham]: OK. Ken?

[Kenneth Lord]: I was just wondering where this leaves us with funding for CMR and our budget.

[Adele Sands]: Yes, and so we can go back to the last slide just to show the overall. We are planning to have an update with all of the anticipated costs that are expected through the end of schematic design at our August meeting. But I can also, we can distribute that to the SBC between now and that meeting if that's helpful.

[Kenneth Lord]: but what are we expecting a CMR to cost? I thought there was like 280,000 left. So this would leave 210 about.

[Adele Sands]: Yeah, there are a couple of other items that will be put, you know, that we're anticipating we'll hit that 280,000 costs as well. I think that is going to be a discussion with the CMR group to make sure that we're putting that in the RFP correctly. There's a couple of different ways that we as left field have seen it done for this specifically for the schematic design phase funding of the CM fee. So we can, you know, designate a specific cost so that there's no surprise to the budget, which I think is what we've done successfully in the past. And then you could let CMs come in and tell you what they expect, what the monthly cost of their SD services would be. So there's two different ways, and I think that does need to warrant further discussion before we necessarily put a number out for that. But we do feel that there is a comfortable amount left in that other reimbursable item budget to cover the CM for the time that we are expecting them to be on the project.

[Kenneth Lord]: We don't have an estimated cost on the CMR, that's what I was asking.

[Adele Sands]: Yeah, I think it's going to depend on what we want to say that cost is going to be. So I think we just need to be a little careful about what we're saying. It's within that $280,000 if that helps the conversation, Ken. Okay. Luke?

[Luke Preisner]: Well, thanks. So I wanted to ask about the geothermal consulting and kind of explore what it is that we would be missing out on if we declined these amendments specifically for geothermal consulting. Or put another way, what is this going to produce for us in terms of information that would lead to, I guess, more informed decision making on what type of HVAC core system we would recommend for the project.

[Kimberly Talbot]: Yeah, so SMMAs and HVAC engineers are generalists. They are excellent. However, geothermal is a specialty. And so Haley and Aldrich, who also performed the geotechnical work for the project, does have that expertise and will be advising. They will be on site when the if this amendment is approved, will be on site when the test bore happens. They can see the conditions themselves. They provide general consulting and advising to our mechanical engineers as they develop the overarching design for the project. There are many, many complexities involved with this, you know, number of bores. making sure the capacity is properly dealt with, depth of bores based on soil conditions. And so back consulting, we do recommend and feel is necessary to supplement what you have with SMMAs engineers. And then again, that extra additional modeling, if there's a need for seeing yet more data based on how things developed, again, we had them break that out separately.

[Luke Preisner]: So based on your reply, it sounds like without them, you wouldn't be in a confident position to execute the work that has been contracted to whoever's making the bore. Is that a fair way of interpreting what you said?

[Kimberly Talbot]: we'd be in a general position to scope the project and remembering that at SD, the critical piece here is scoping the project correctly and getting that cost estimate as fine as we can at an SD level, because that is the budget for forevermore. That is the budget number that is voted on next June. So having that advice and consent is really important.

[Luke Preisner]: But I mean, is it possible that this committee would recommend against a geothermal solution? I'll say the costs remain what they are. We've seen the costs through the LCCA. They're triple digit millions. It's also expensive for the air. water heat pump technology. But it's a very high expense that never breaks even. It's possible that we don't proceed with it. And so if we decline this work today, would we miss out on any information that would improve our ability to either accept or decline geothermal as an option for our project?

[Adele Sands]: I think if I could just jump in here, I think if we have more information on the wells through this work that Haley and Aldrich would do based on the findings of the test bore, then we can really narrow in on what this well field will cost. And we will have more information for this group to make the decision of if you want geothermal, all geothermal, or a hybrid condition, or Not at all. So I think this would be very useful information to have for this group to come to a more informed decision about the geothermal well.

[Luke Preisner]: I mean, do you anticipate the estimated cost falling by a large percentage from what we've seen based on your findings?

[Adele Sands]: It could, and that's kind of the, you know, we need to know more to develop this more accurately, or, you know, it could change either in either direction really cost wise once we have this information because it could. indicate that we are requiring more wells, deeper wells, fewer wells, more shallow wells. I think having this information allows the team to, I'm trying not to say drill down on the costs of the system, but I think this would be you know, money well spent to get the information that you need on the well system.

[Luke Preisner]: But we have Haley and Eldrick already as part of the consultancy team. And we've already, or you, have already contracted for their services to analyze the results of the bore. What you're proposing here is not an over and above, but it's an amendment. It's a new cost to have them present for the boring. Is that true?

[Kimberly Talbot]: No, that's not the case, Luke. It's what they provided to the project previously was geotechnical consulting as laid out by the MSBA agreement. Geothermal is another separated service, hence this coming in now. And so what they're doing with the consulting is not just witnessing the board, but they are advising our engineers to properly and fully develop the system for the costing that has to happen in December.

[Luke Preisner]: All right. Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: Brian?

[Brian Hilliard]: Thanks. Hi, Helen. Just actually curious on the Thompson and Lichner testing and just wondering if you can expound a little bit more about their process and what we expect to find out through those guys.

[Kimberly Talbot]: Sure. Because there are no existing conditions drawings for the building as a whole, the pool specifically, what the scanning will do will be to allow our structural engineers to understand where rebar is. They will also be doing some selective tapping of tiles to listen for hollow sounds and try to suss out any areas of weakness. But again, it's that scanning to determine what's underneath, literally what's underneath the surface, both in the pool basin and on the pool deck.

[Brian Hilliard]: OK, perfect. That's what I was hoping for. Thanks.

[Kimberly Talbot]: OK, great.

[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions? Maria?

[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay, hi. Helen, I heard you mention that they will be starting this testing in August when the pool is drained. Did I hear that right? Yeah, we were, yes, yeah. Go ahead, sorry. Well, my question about that is how it's going to impact the programs that are taking place. I know USA Swim will be getting, again, our swim team will probably be getting their There's the practices. And so on that level, how long will it be empty and will it impact our students?

[Kimberly Talbot]: I'm going to let Ken take that. He gave us one day to get all this done. So go ahead.

[Kenneth Lord]: So I worked with Rachel to build that schedule. There's already a pool closure week. that we do a deep clean of all the locker rooms and everything else. So this is the weekend prior to that. So this was the one day in the schedule that Rachel felt we could drain the pool over the weekend, do the scan, immediately fill, and then while we're doing the normal week of closure, be able to get the pool balanced and everything in time for her summer activities, which start, I think, on the 17th, if I remember correctly. So this was all done in consultation with her. She picked the date.

[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay, thank you, I was concerned.

[Jenny Graham]: Is there perhaps a motion to approve the proposed amendment with the exception of item E?

[Kenneth Lord]: Which is E?

[Jenny Graham]: Which is the pool design for the new basin, aquatic design group 9130, so $9,000. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Libby, was that you? Who said second? It was not me, I think it was Nicole.

[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: The mayor, Breanna.

[Jenny Graham]: Oh, hi, thanks. It all happened too fast. Okay, I'll call the roll. Jenny Grimm, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galussi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro, Paul Malone, Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron Olapade.

[Luke Preisner]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Luke Preissner.

[Luke Preisner]: Just so I understand, we're voting to approve all of these costs minus the one called New Basin? Yes. That went down? Yep. I guess I don't know why. I'll just abstain.

[Jenny Graham]: 11 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one abstention, three absent. The motion is approved. Okay. We did want to give everyone an update on our FAS meeting with the MSBA, which was last week. In the presentation, which we will send to you after the meeting, the slides as they were delivered to the FAS, are here. You all have seen and heard so much of this story. So I'm going to ask our presenters to move quickly through the slides, because what I really want to be able to talk about at the end was the feedback from the MSBA, because I think that's what people are actually interested in. So I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Galusi to kick us off, but I think we can move pretty quickly, particularly on topics where this group is very familiar.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Absolutely heard. So this group has definitely been along as we have. You've been part of the visioning sessions. You've been part of the work that we did to actually build the educational plan and the work that we've done to modify some of that educational plan. So we started the presentation with a snapshot of the vision of Medford Public Schools and how we got to where we are and what we want. this building to be able to provide for our students, our staff, and our community, and the work that we're doing currently to be able to be prepared and set and ready for transitioning to a new space. So you can see here from the bolded text, it was everything we've been talking about around accessibility, about creating belonging, about creating spaces where student voices are heard, seen, and heightened. and really looking at spaces that are flexible and purposeful that are going to be able to grow with the community as we move forward. The next slide talked a little bit about that process with the visioning. Many of you on this committee were part of the visioning sessions. I think it's important to note that our Educational consultant, Mike Perolo, presented a lot of what's on this slide, and I just kind of highlighted some of the continued work that we've been doing post-visioning. But we could see a lot of the impactful pieces of this work came around listening to our students. We followed them for a day and sat in the seats and learned alongside them and really got to see what it was like for them to move within the space we currently have and what their aspirations are for what they'd like to see high school education become. We talked a lot about what those visioning sessions yielded from the students and from the staff perspective. and really talked about one Medford High School. I think we know we've been working on that for a very long time. We have one schedule right now. And so a lot of this work was about what is that going to look like to have a building that's completely integrated and inclusive. And so that we don't have pocketed silos in a restrictive building. We have students learning next to students. CTE, special education, EL spaces that are fully integrated in a meaningful way. And so if we advance, we then transitioned to say, this is like the preliminary summary of what some of those adjacencies and what some of that integration could look like. We highlighted the thoughtful approach we're taking to keeping some of those spaces core for students around like dining, the media center students, really our students spoke about how they really feel safe in that space. and then how we're creating pathways for students so that CTE and special education and EL are woven throughout in a really meaningful and purposeful way. We also talked about access and safe access so that we know this building has a lot of community-facing programs. We want to maintain that, but we also want to be able to do that in a safe way. We know some of our CTE spaces are community-facing, so what do the adjacencies look like and the locations look like so that we can have access still for the community to participate and use some of our CTE spaces or the auditorium when there are productions or events. The gymnasium for the same manner, but how can we keep the rest of the building secure? So we talked a lot about location and adjacencies. And then in outdoor space, so you can see some of these two also have ways that we can bring the outdoor fells in a more meaningful way. into this high school building that right now is just rigid in nature. The next slide, we kind of moved forward by showing them what this design looks like so that they can see the location of where art and music and the theater would be in front of the gymnasium because a lot of those spaces are community facing on the back end and around some of the perimeters, having it be some of those CTE shops. that the community would need to access and that also needs space to be able to be right out on ground level. And then the ECC and some of the central office spaces being another separate wing out here where it can grow with the landscape, but be able to be easily manipulated in location and adjacencies if need be. And then that heart is kind of like the main entrance of the building where students would and visitors would enter. And then the next slide, I believe, got into a little bit more where Matt Rice would kind of kick in here. And so I'm going to pass it on to Matt.

[Matt Rice]: And I will try to keep it brief. And certainly if any members of the committee would like us to go back afterwards and get into a little bit more detail, we're happy to do that. But I will just reinforce the notion that all of these images were included as part of the PSR report going through. So this is not new information. This is really just a clarification of information that was presented to the FAS committee. So on the left-hand side, we have the site plan showing the site circulation. through in the various program components from a site perspective. And on the right-hand side, we have the overall site ownership diagram, which showed the deed-restricted land, among other parts and pieces, as well as the surrounding DCR land and other neighbors that are approximate. I'm going to move through these. This particular site plan was illustrating the solar orientation of the building, as well as in particular where the expansion, potential future expansion for the building would be, which is eye on top at level six, extending out in this direction versus looking for expansion at grade in any particular direction. We then went through the series of floor plans, all six floors as we move up. And again, I'll just do this very quickly. The first floor and what we see to the top here is cut into the earth. So again, the grade slopes up on the site as we move from the south to the north, bottom to the top of the page. We actually have four different floors of ground floor space, space that accesses the ground adjacent to it. As we move up to the building, it's almost 45 feet of elevation change in ground floor elevations as we go. This first one is really just providing access to a portion of the early childhood center. The second floor does contain the main entrance to the high school at this particular elevation. It also is the level where the auditorium would be in several program spaces. Some of those retail facing CTE programs like culinary arts and cosmetology. as well as music programs. This is also the level where the, as we're tying into the existing levels, the level of the existing locker room below the gymnasium and the pool support spaces. As we move up to the third floor, this is really the first or primary high school elevation where we have ground floor program all the way throughout from back to front. This is where the existing gymnasium is, as well as the pool. Dining Commons would be adjacent to that. Our learning communities stretch to the north and to the south, and again, integrate in CTE spaces as well as academic and special education spaces. As we move up to the fourth floor, you can see this is where the media center has been located, right at the center in that heart position that Dr. Galussi alluded to. Again, integrated learning communities moving from the south to the north. Coincidentally, this is also the level where the existing batting cages are located here adjacent to the pool. And you can see this is actually also our Edgerly Field level. So this is the last ground floor elevation that we have. And you can see that the field extends out and access some of the CTE programs as well on this northern end. And then as we move up, fifth floor is really exclusively that integrated learning community ribbon as it passes back and through. And on the sixth floor, we have just this north-south running volume. Again, this is that expansion area that we're looking at at the site plan. We did include some building sections really at the request of the MSBA and the FAS. This is something that they do look for to understand sort of that overall topographical change. On the left-hand side, looking at Winthrop Street all the way up to Edgerly Field. Again, in terms of those two elevations, there's almost 80 feet of elevation change across the site, so we're dealing with a lot of topography. In that bottom section, you can see really how the fells rises up to the eastern side here, and you almost get to the point where you're at the roof level of the building. If you're ever walking around up in the fells, you can definitely get that perception even of the existing building being above the top. We had this overall diagram, which I believe folks have seen before, which just illustrates various site components in relationship to the building. And again, this is just our renovated section of the gymnasium. the pool, the large PE spaces here, the gymnastics gym, as well as the fitness center, and then the new addition wrapping through and beyond. This is organized in the same way as that initial diarium that we're showing, the multipurpose field up front, the track and field up at Edgerly Field, and then the large parking area in the center. We did give a very quick highlight to some of the things that we've been talking about with the interior and exterior design advisory team. Some of the priorities that were expressed and some of the visuals that resonated with that group were shared just so that the MSBA can sort of understand where we may be moving in terms of general design aesthetic. We then gave an overall summary by the space categories in the space summaries. This is not the granular version that has every single line item indicated, but these are the large space categories indicating existing proposed, the MSBA guideline, and then the variation between the proposed and the MSBA guideline, as well as some explanatory text. We do have a slide or a pair of slides later in the presentation that we'll get into in more detail because it is worth running through this in a little bit more detail. This was the version that we showed to the MSBA though, so this was just here for record. We did go through some of the high-level sustainability goals for the project so that the MSBA was aware of what those targets were that we're looking at and where the discussion has been. surrounding sustainability and we've had a couple of good meetings this past week that have also advanced this conversation. There was, Jenny, do you want to talk to this one really quick?

[Jenny Graham]: Sure, at the end of the presentation we talked briefly about the significant community interest in this project and all of the meetings that we have had to date and a little bit about the plan for additional community forums, some joint listening sessions between the school committee and the city council in the lead up to the full authorization and the vote, and really talked about how our goal along has been to provide all, you know, all the information that people are seeking and asking about as, you know, sort of as completely as we can. And that that's a big, huge task on this project, because there is just so much information. And that, you know, in the coming months, we'll be really focused on sort of tuning our communications. So uh, it makes all of this information a little bit more digestible, which should be much easier now that we have one single option. Um, and, um, you know, they, they, um, wanted to hear about that when, um, they gave us the list of things that they wanted to talk about. So we covered that briefly and pointed them to where they can learn more about that if they're interested.

[Adele Sands]: And then I think I'll jump in. Go ahead, Jen. We just quickly took them through the timeline that you are all very familiar with. Just a couple of highlights here. The schematic design really technically kicks off with the MSBA Board of Directors meeting August 26th this year. And then it goes, it lasts through the April 26th meeting. 9th, 8th, 9th Board of Directors meeting to approve the project's schematic design submissions. That is the phase that we will technically be entering in after the Board of Directors meeting. That will be followed by, like I said, MSBA approval April 2027. And then there we are targeting a city vote in June 8th, 2027 to move this project forward design development would follow and last about a year. Construction documents would take us through May of 29. Then after that, far out to fully predict until we have a CM on board and we can massage this schedule. It does take us through summer of 33 for the building and site work complete in over summer of 34. Sorry, next. And then we did take them very high level overview because by the time we get to the end of the presentation, they're more interested in all of the other aspects of the project. We did take them through this chart that they request at PSR. This lays out our preferred solution against the others that were not selected and just compares them across the board. You are familiar with this information as well, I believe. And I was not actually in the presentation. So please, Matt, if there's anything that I missed.

[Matt Rice]: You did a great job summarizing, Jen. So you were there in spirit.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Matt, do you want to talk a little bit about the comments that we received and how they relate to what you all were expecting to hear?

[Matt Rice]: Yeah, and I do actually, just so I don't miss anything, I do have the list, the document, the MSBA did send some comments back to us. But let me start off just by saying that this was probably the most positive FAS meeting that I've ever had the ability to attend as different projects. It was actually really great to hear the feedback from all different avenues and the way that the MSBA FAS subcommittee works is that each individual member from the board has a particular area of focus, one from the DESE perspective on special education and CTE programs. There's one member that focused exclusively on the educational plan and sort of the the implementation of the plan in the design and the robustness of the plan. There's another member that focuses more on the architectural design and site design and how those two things are coming together. And then the last member focuses more on sort of construction, logistics and execution of the project. And I would say from all four of those members, we really got resounding positive feedback in terms of development. I think the The best piece of it to hear was really the kudos on the educational plan, which we got positive feedback on both the initial submission as well as the resubmission with the comments that were done in response to the initial PDP comments, which is not something we had heard before either. So there's just a lot of great feedback there in a general sense. In terms of the specifics, there were certainly some things that the FAS committee asked us to think about as we move forward. I think a lot of them were already part of the plan in terms of what we're going to be going through. But just to read these off sort of quickly, they did comment on the site topography, the overall complexity of the project, given the program and the size of it. So that was something I think we're all very much aware of. They were complimentary of the inclusion of our special ed programming throughout the rest of the building. There was a little bit of discussion about how we were Distributing out the various specialized programs, sometimes in suite arrangements so that staff that were providing specialized services had the ability to reinforce each other in terms of those areas, but those suites were distributed throughout the building, so they were very content with that, and noted that they would be reviewing in detail our specialized ed program when we submit at the end of the schematic design phase, as is normal, as they will also be reviewing our CTE offerings and the design as well at the end of the schematic design phase. In terms of the educational planning comments, there was some feedback that noted sort of the exaggeration of time that we have given the complexity of the project, and they felt that that was appropriate. They also encouraged the district to consider the use of that time to really get a jump start on some professional development that would allow staff to really take full advantage um, of the building, the new facility, um, when it is online, even before it's online, um, to help make sure that the building gets utilized in the way that is described in the educational plan. Um, so I think there's, there's a lot of opportunity for that. And those comments were certainly positively received. There was a complimentary comment on the overall design and organization of the building, especially with the positioning of the addition volume in front of the existing gymnasium and pool, hiding that sort of big blank facade. And I know that's something that this committee in particular discussed as a rationale. as we were going through the evaluation process. So that was definitely observed and noted as part of the evaluation of the design. There was a suggestion that we think about the opportunity to really define and accentuate the entrance to the auditorium and how that can potentially be a discrete community entrance from the main high school entrance. So that's something that we're already looking at trying to, as we evolve the program and have additional programming discussions to figure out how we can integrate that feedback into what we're going to be doing. There was a little cautioning of the large parking lot in the foreground of the building and the fact that it's a single parking area that can be challenging just from a visual standpoint as one approaches the building. So there was just a request to look at options as we move forward with there in terms of potential distribution of the parking around the site, and we are happy to do that. There was some noting of the variations from the MSBA guidelines, but there was actually a a positive response saying that it was understandable, giving the table that was presented in terms of where the overages were and why the overages were, and moved beyond that. And so that was really great to hear because we know we've had a lot of discussions about the size and the complexity and the volume of the program. And it was good to hear the MSBA indicate that they understood the rationale behind that, behind the size of the program itself. We did talk a little bit about where the potential geothermal wells might be on the site, either on the fields. But there's the question of the deed restriction that we're still hoping to get some clarity on in the near future. We also have the potential of putting them on the parking lot down the road, which would involve some amount of phasing in terms of getting access to that area in the future. They asked us to clarify the locations. A number of elevators to make sure that we had good access distributed throughout the building, which was fine. And the last one. So I think they talked a little bit about just looking at the areas within the building that were designated for renovation versus new addition and just making sure that we're clear as we go forward in terms of which programs are suitable to be located in the portions of the building that are getting renovated. So that was a good summary of the feedback. And again, they did send a follow-up note, which I was just reading along, which summarized that feedback.

[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Matt. Yeah, I thought overall the conversation was as complex as the project, because they definitely had a lot of questions for the amount of time allotted. to cover like a lot of territory. But you know, overall, they were just really super interested in the project. They noted that this is a really unique and ambitious project. And they just really were very complimentary of all the work. So a huge thank you to our team, because I know it has been a tremendous effort to get us to this point. They did not vote in the meeting. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. And we haven't yet received any additional feedback from them, but all signs ago for the board meeting at the end of August. So we're ready to respond to some of the questions as they send them. And yeah, I think that's it. Are there any questions about the FAS meeting?

[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Lisa? Hi, I was just wondering if you could clarify. I know that the floor plans were presented. Where are we with those floor plans? Those are far more detailed than I've seen previously. And I'm just wondering. are, where we are with those. I know that there's a lot of discussions we still need to have. I know one of them was, there was a letter from a community member about teacher spaces, where are teachers, how, when they're not in a classroom, is it offices, you know, that sort of thing. And I think that these are really important questions. And so I'm just wondering, with those floor plans, are those just a starting point or can you just clarify that?

[Matt Rice]: Sure. The way I would think about the floor plans is they are a moment in time where we are, what I put up on screen. They are not what we are locked into for the rest of the project. They are really our interpretation of some adjacencies that were talked about during our initial PDP program meetings. But the challenge is that we don't have anything to look at. And we know it's difficult to visualize and anticipate all of the different scenarios that are present in the final preferred solution when we have those initial discussions. So we have already begun to sort of look forward and look at revising those as we started to have some initial programming meetings. We'll continue to have some of those during the month of August for groups that are available to the project team over the course of the summer. But we're also going to have a more intense set of those for anyone's that we cannot get completed over the summer when we return in September. And that's when, for instance, Lisa will be meeting with yourself as well as the rest of the chapter 74 instructors and the rest of the academic instructors as well, all the different groups that are in the building. And we're going to be still collecting feedback on the plan. We will talk specifically about adjacencies. We'll talk about all the various sort of questions, concerns that folks have during this next round of programming that we do. And really the goal is once we get to the end of the schematic design phase that we have everything more or less set. But we're definitely not at that point right now. We're still in the evolutionary process. The key is that we have presented the scheme, the overall approach in terms of the massing of the building. That's what we need to hold consistent. And that's what we will hold consistent as we go forward. But there is ample opportunity to think about adjacencies and spatial layouts. as we go forward and through this next round of programming that we're going to do.

[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Also, one more request. Just when there's acronyms, if they could be explained what the acronym is, especially because we have a lot of community members who attend meetings that maybe haven't been exposed to all of them before, and something as simple as, I don't know what FAS stands for. So just when we do use the acronyms, it'd be nice to know what they stand for.

[Jenny Graham]: Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Lisa, for that reminder. It's the Facilities Assessment Subcommittee. That's the FAS acronym. And the next thing we're going to do once we're done with this topic is we're actually going to start looking at some of those schematic layouts. as it relates to various sections of the space summary. So we thought it would be a good use of time and energy over the course of the next like four or five meetings. We'll actually go through each section of the space summary and talk about what's in there in detail, provide some context for what those spaces are and the anticipated where there's variation, what those reimbursements might look like and sort of where we're thinking about those things in the building. And through that process, we'll get to kind of tour in depth all of these spaces as they exist right now and provide some feedback that will also help the project team go into those meetings. So we'll be going on some mini tours in the coming meetings here.

[Maria D'Orsi]: Maria? Hi, yes, I watched a portion of the school committee meeting this week. And it did, what I saw was that the FAS had asked about storage for the renters. And some of the discussion that I heard also was that, you know, the possibility of storage, maybe even being off from the main building, you know, and some interesting possibilities. I was just curious where that landed because I didn't hear the whole discussion and how you plan to follow up with the committee on that.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, that'll be on the August agenda and we will dive deep into that topic in August. So because it's not on the agenda tonight, we're not going to talk about it tonight, but it's on tap for the August 24th meeting or 25th meeting, whatever date that is in August. Okay. August 25th. Any other questions about the FAS meeting and the feedback? Okay, moving right ahead. We wanted to provide an update on the Teen Health Center. And just by way of framing, we had a discussion at school committee on Monday evening about the Teen Health Center. Like as you all know, this is not something that exists today at Medford High School, though it does exist at many surrounding schools. And the space summary did provide for space and a location in our building for such a teen health center. And the conversation on Monday night was to hear from the school committee, its intentions around this space. So the school committee has to make some decisions about the inclusion of such a program, which was why we were having the conversation on Monday evening. So we're largely going to share the same slides with you that we shared with the school committee and tell you sort of where they landed as an update. And then Matt will also be able to point us to the specific spaces, that little mini tour that I was referencing, what the space summary looks like, and answer any questions you have about where we are. So I will turn it over to Dr. Glucy.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you. So what we presented on Monday night was first just an overview of what is a teen health center or as many districts refer to it as a school based community health center. They are there to eliminate barriers like cost and scheduling and transportation so that students are able to get medical and mental health services directly on campus in a wraparound manner. So as Chair Graham mentioned, around Medford, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Peabody, Revere, and Somerville all have teen health centers as part of their high schools. We had Director Silva and Director Dr. Shulman do a lot of networking to these neighboring districts, as well as do some research with CHA, Cambridge Health Alliance, to learn a little bit more comprehensively about what's happening. And a lot of what they learned was also some of these pieces here that They do protect in having a teen-based health center can help protect valuable instructional time and that the data shows that 97% of students that visit during the school day have an immediate return to the classroom once they're able to be seen and address what is happening at the time. What we here in Medford have seen is that when our students took the 2025 Youth Risk Survey, it highlighted that mental health was a significant concern in Medford, and it showed that 20 percent of our high school students are reporting poor mental health, and 25 of those are experiencing debilitating depression. Knowing that data, if we go to the next slide, what we talked about here was how it would be used and what our current approach to care is. we have to acknowledge that the location of Medford High School is not centralized. It is to one side of Medford that abuts Winchester. And for a significant number of our students, part of that is difficult in terms of our location. And so pairing that with we have an in-house pediatrician, Dr. Sabia, that also works with some of our students. A lot of our students seek his care, especially around sports registration time, and so he assists a lot of students and families with physicals so that students may be able to not only update their school records, but also be eligible to play sports. However, and I'm sure you've heard this across the Commonwealth and across the country, and especially since the pandemic, it is very difficult and challenging for families and students to find mental health care. And so knowing all of that, the other pieces that we found out in our research is that a teen health center, a fully staffed teen health center, requires a nurse practitioner, a medical assistant, a health advocate, and a behavioral health provider. There are state grants that can cover about $150,000 of expenses, but some of what we learned is that that still leaves an operational gap for districts anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000. However, Medicaid reimbursement does cover nearly all of that and in funds back to the city. What we would need is a redirection of those funds from the city to the teen health center so that it would be able to kind of cover that operational gap. So if we go to the next slide, this just gives a snapshot of what would be comprised in the teen health center. So there would be a waiting and a reception area. There would be two toilets, an exam room, an office, a staff room, and a storage room. So you would need these spaces in order to store the needed medical supplies, you would need private areas in which to speak with students, and exam rooms in which to conduct simple things, even as like a strep test. COVID test so that students can be seen and we can like move on to what is needed for them to, for their issues to be addressed and recovery on the way. And so the total project cost of this is about, I would say rounding up $2.4 million. And then if we go to the next slide, this is what we presented to school committee. What we asked for the school committee was for their guidance on whether or not we should seek these spaces in the new build. They are not reimbursable, whether the school committee could accept and absorb some of those annual operating costs, and whether there's interest in exploring any or all like potential partners, the Medicaid reimbursement process, any grant or philanthropic funding that could be generated, and whether a plan could be cost-neutral to receive approval. And as Chair Graham mentioned, there was very not very in-depth conversation because there were a lot of value statements around our core values in terms of right now for what's happening in the world and again being flexible and growing with the needs of our community and our students, being able to provide physical medical and mental health services to our students is just a core value. You can see how many surrounding districts provide that for students. There is data to show the direct correlation to increased academic outcomes. And so the school committee voted six in the affirmative, one absent, and one abstain to continue our plans for a teen health center as part of this process, this project. And I think that's the last, oh. And then the other piece that we did talk about is the location. You can see the blue dotted circle does have this right now located in the section of the high school that jets out. This is for a couple reasons and it doesn't mean to Matt Rice's point earlier that this is the forever home as we really start to finalize the plans. Some of the key pieces to why it would be located here is for access. confidentiality, and also confidential access. So today, there are several reasons why students may need to be transported by ambulance. And making sure that's not done in the front of the building is an important piece. And here, having access to discrete areas as well as being kind of located near academic spaces as well as the discrete way to be able to pick up students. And I don't know, Matt, if you want to add on to this or elaborate on the pieces that I've missed.

[Matt Rice]: No, I think you did a great job in terms of just giving the general overview of the rationale behind why this was located here. There is also the nurse's office, the medical suite for the high school located in proximity because there is a desire to have some adjacency. And I think we've had some good programming discussions about whether those two should be even more proximate than they are here. while maintaining the ability to have sort of a discrete entrance and exit if that is a necessary occurrence during the course of the school day. So I think it is just a good example of saying, well, this is generally where we are in the rationale of why, but the fact that we're still going to have some conversations moving forward. We did have one last slide. I saw that Luke did put his hand up, but I just want to give this quick example that we shared as well with school committee on Monday. This is a prototype area of how the Cambridge Health Alliance Teen Health Center was incorporated at Somerville High School. And you can see here, this is immediately adjacent to the high school nurses suite. There is a lobby here, or a waiting area when you come in, some consult offices, some private nurse exam rooms. a staff room as well as a lab, a double locked room where medications would be stored, an office for a health educator, as well as a soiled linens room. And there is a separate entrance here as well, coming in from the high school, away from the main high school entrance, just so people have a little bit better sense of what might be in that space rather than sort of the larger block that's indicated here. That's all we had.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes, and I do want to also correct that my math was a little wrong in terms of the school committee vote. It was a 5-1-1 vote. So five in the affirmative, one absent, and one abstain. And then if there's any questions.

[Luke Preisner]: Luke? Thanks, yeah. I think the purpose of the Teen Health Center isn't for me to decide, but I am troubled by locating it at this site. Thanks, Matt, for showing the Somerville precedent. If anyone has ever been to Somerville High School, they know it's in the middle of Somerville. It's very accessible. It's, you know, in the core of the community. Our high school is not. Our high school is in the most affluent part of Medford. It's kind of hard to get to unless you have a car. Certainly those most in need of these services that can't get them through private services or existing healthcare arrangements are probably not nearby. And so, I think the need for mental health in the community is a real one, but I think including it as part of this project is kind of a mistake. And I think it's not going to, well, we know it's not going to be reimbursed, but if it's something the community needs, the community should do it, but should do it somewhere more centrally located where people that need it would actually use it. So I wanted to share that perspective. Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions or comments about the Teen Health Center?

[Libby Brown]: Libby? Hi, so I generally agree with having this as part of the project. I think it could be a great resource. I agree that the location isn't great for the community, but it's great for teens who are in the high school. But it might be helpful just either as we make decisions about this to know what the stats are in terms of our community at the school, like how many students might not have I mean, I assume everyone has health insurance because we're in Massachusetts, but if there's people struggling to get appointments with their doctors or to see somebody outside of school hours, if there's any way to sort of get some data on that to say like, well, this really does justify that there's a lot of students who can't see someone elsewhere, to sort of say that this is a real need that they need to get it when they're, it's really helpful to have it when they're at school, somebody you know, right next to where their classes are, just to help understand what group we're serving. I know, I dug a little bit too, like certainly all those schools around us have these teen health centers, but then kind of half the towns around us don't, and Medford kind of lies in between in terms of our demographics, so it would just be really good to understand, you know, how that shift, how that sort of balance would work.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, we can work on that. Thanks, Libby. Lisa Miller?

[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Hi, I was just wondering, would having the teen health center be part of the high school reduce the size of the nursing suite? What's that relationship? If we decide not to have the teen health center there, does the nursing suite get bigger? I'm curious about that.

[Matt Rice]: But both the nursing suite and the teen health center were sort of sized as they would need to be to operate independently. I think if they are co-located next to each other, there may be the opportunity to look at reducing slightly, like double use of maybe the toilet rooms. That is something that we did in Somerville. So there may be a small amount of efficiency gain there. if we can locate them adjacent. But right now, I think we've taken a more conservative programming approach just to make sure that we're covered and we would look for efficiencies as we are everywhere as we go forward in the programming process.

[Libby Brown]: Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions about the update on the Teen Health Center? Okay, moving on. We're gonna talk a little bit relatedly about the medical space in just a minute. What we're trying to frame in this segment for each of these areas of the space summary is what is the space summary? What did the space summary say about this topic? So for example, medical. where are we proposing to locate it in the building and sort of what is the programming that's going on in those spaces to try to bring to life some of these things that have existed on a spreadsheet. As we go through this process, we're also anticipating that there will be potential changes to the space summary that we will be seeking approval on. And so we'll go through that section by section here. Before we go through that, though, the first two slides are sort of our grounding comments. And so what this chart is is sort of a deeper dive from what we presented to the FAS. and it lists each area of the space summary on your left. It shows what the existing space is in Medford High School. It shows the proposed space as outlined in the space summary for CE 2.2a. It also shows where there are MSBA guidelines, what that number would be for our building, and then a variation number if it exists. The comments then go on to sort of talk about those variations in some specific detail. And so we'll talk about this slide and the next slide on an ongoing basis as we make our way through these space summaries. So our first topic is the medical part of the space summary. And so you can see at the bottom there, the existing medical suite is 1,250 square feet. The proposed is 1,660 square feet. There is a variation of about 1,200 square feet. Sorry, the MSBA guidelines are about 1,210 square feet. And so there's a 450 square foot variation in this category. In the comments, what it says is that this, the variance is for included area for two nurses offices beyond what the guidelines are to align with our actual staffing and include a private office for sensitive conversations and an additional office. So the two is for private office for sensitive conversations, HIPAA conversations, those kinds of things. And then an additional shared office because we house three nurses. The SMMA team also provided some context that this particular category often sees overages on similar projects because the square footage guidelines for the medical are generally kind of low. And so from a reimbursement perspective, the reimbursement is not certain yet, but probably unlikely for the variation of 450 square feet. So Matt, if you wanna move forward a couple of slides, I'll turn the reins over to you to talk about the medical suite and the programming in particular for this whole package of medical.

[Matt Rice]: And I know that we have a lot of information to cover here as well. And maybe on these slides, I will not go through every single line in the tier. Certainly folks are welcome to review this information after the fact, but just understand that what we've done is gone back and met with our primary stakeholders for each one of these medical groups, or each one of the program groups that we're going to look at medical in this particular instance. And these were really some of the primary takeaways that came out of our initial PDP phase programming meetings. And so the first step in this process is really to validate, confirm the information that we heard previously. In some cases, there are updates because potentially we misheard something or there's been a change over the course of the past six months, nine months since we spoke with everyone initially. So it's really trying to make sure that we understand a baseline for where we were going. We then proceeded to look at an excerpt of the overall space summary. So now we're getting into the detailed line items for every individual space, for every one of these categories. And I will say it was strategic that we started with medical and guidance and with custodial maintenance. Just because they're a little bit simpler, there's less lines to run through. So it made sense to sort of get our process down with some of these space categories that were a little bit simpler to sort of wrap our arms around. So the listing of what we have in the medical suite or at the end of the PSR phase, right, two toilets for the nurse's office. A nurse's office waiting room. And this is sort of the designation that was given in the MSBA guidelines initially. So this is an open area that sort of serves as both waiting room and nurse's office. Three individual interview rooms. Six exam rooms and resting rooms. And these can be either sort of open areas that are separated by curtains with cots. or individual rooms, but that's the square footage that's given in the quantity based on the design enrollment for the school. And then these last two line items are the ones that were above the guidelines, the private office that was described as well as the shared office, a shared work area that was a more efficient way of providing dedicated office space for those three nurses, as opposed to building three individual or in this case, two additional private offices. And so just a note, as we were going through this process, we were both looking for space efficiencies and talking through opportunities for space efficiencies as we were reviewing the space list that is here, as well as going back to the larger list of proposed reductions that were put forward at the April 27th meeting earlier this year. just to confirm whether or not any of those opportunities were viable to realize at this particular point in time when we're going to the programming process, the schematic design programming process. For this particular category, there were not any efficiencies identified because the space sizes that were listed there, as well as the quantities and types of spaces, we did confirm as being necessary from either educational perspective, an operational perspective, again, tying to existing staffing models and how services would be provided in this particular instance, or if there's a code-required purpose. For instance, the medical suite toilets are sized at 60 square feet per room because we need an accessible code-required clearance in there around the toilets, that type of thing. Um, so we just wanted to know, and this is going to be the same note that you'll see for all the categories as we go forward. Um, and we do have all the confidence in the world that we will find some efficiencies as we go through it. Um, just in these three that we're going to look at today, um, we were not able to, again, I think given the, the small, um, scale of the programs that we were looking at. So also as part of this process and we'll have similar diagrams and exhibits for each one of the categories that we're going to talk about today, we did locate within the building for everyone where the current position of the spaces are so the medical suite as we were talking about earlier. located just north of that sort of southern wing that projects with central office. Good proximity here to the main entrance into the high school, good proximity to the administrative suite, and also the opportunity to bring students out of the building, not through the main entrance if that need arised. And I think that's what we, I don't know whether it makes sense to stop and pause here and talk a little bit about if there's any questions on medical before I roll through everything, because there are a lot of slides and that may be a lot to get through all the way. So if folks have questions, I think we can pause here for a second.

[Jenny Graham]: Any questions about the medical suite, the spaces, the intention for the spaces, where it's located?

[Matt Rice]: All right, well, maybe, maybe I'll just get a breath and then I'll keep going. All right. So the second one that we're going to talk through is counseling or guidance is sometimes known. Again, this is the outline of what we talked about with the counseling group. I will say there's very robust counseling services that are provided at Medford High School. So there's some atypical spaces in here, in terms of the STEPS program in particular, that falls into this category, given how it's administered throughout the school. And I may lean on Rosemary just to give her a heads up when we get there, because she has probably a little bit more detail if people are curious about some of the nuances of the individual programs. Again, some of the goals in terms of what we're trying to make sure that students have access to from a counseling perspective as well. These are tying into some of the other space categories and so aren't necessarily going to be covered in this particular overview that we're going to give, but just having an awareness that these things are important from a counseling perspective as well. The STEPS program as well. Rosemary, if you're on, do you want to just give a quick overview of the STEPS program so folks can understand it?

[Rosemary Park]: Yeah, sure. So the SEPS program is a hospital re-entry program that the school has, and I'm sorry, the full name of it, I know Lisa, you just talked about acronyms, but the full name of it is escaping me. I apologize for that. So this is generally a short-term re-entry spot for students. And so they, they really do want a little bit of a quieter area since they do the majority of their learning while in this program in this dedicated classroom. They do also, some people may be coming back from a physical injury as well. And so it's imperative that they have a dedicated bathroom that is sized appropriately right there as part of the suite There are several staff members that are associated and dedicated to this program, so they also need some space here as well. They have frequent parent and student meetings, so a need for discretion is critical here. And then in addition to meeting with the adjustment Councilor that's part of this program and the teachers, the students will regularly have virtual telehealth calls with outside providers. So creating a private phone booth or space for them to be able to take those calls discreetly was also an important part of this program.

[Matt Rice]: All right, thank you. So again, we have the listing of all the program components at a more granular level here for the counseling program. So Medford High School does refer to it as counseling. The MSBA space summary template refers to it as guidance. They are synonymous. And we are just not allowed to change the standard lines that are in the MSBA. That's why there's that little bit of a disconnect here. So what the MSBA guidelines allow for is six counseling guidance offices, a storeroom, a career center, a career center office, the records room that's dedicated to counseling or guidance records, adjustment Councilor offices, psychologist office, There's a house office commons, as well as a collection of spaces within each house office or suite. That's why you see three of each one of those. So each house will have a reception, waiting area, a conference room, a restorative room, as well as a phone booth. Um, and then there is, um, included, um, one youth wellness coach officer, uh, office, um, and then the components of the steps program, um, that Rosemary just outlined, uh, listed below. Um, I apologize. This, this particular, um, chart does not identify which are sort of within the standard, uh, MSBA, um, spatial guidelines in which are, um, outside of it. But I think that summary was included in the prior table that we looked at as we jumped into this particular topic. So we can always circle back to that if we need to. And again, this reminder that we were talking through spatial efficiencies, either reductions in the size of space or reduction quantities of space or elimination of space as we went through this conversation as well. In terms of where the counseling resources would be located within the building, the steps classroom is positioned back here on this, again, the third floor level adjacent to the medical suite, again, near the main entrance to the high school, but also having access to the same discrete path out of the building, if needs be, or into the building as well. And then in terms of the house offices, those were intended to be located at a centralized position on the upper levels of the building to route, to distribute out administrative presence through the building with good sight lines through different corridors. So this is up on the fourth floor as we move up really at one of these hallway intersections with learning communities. So there's good observation in both directions. And then that would be located as well, since there's three of those on levels five and six as well, directly in the same position. All right. Let me pause there on counseling before we move forward to custodial.

[Jenny Graham]: Any questions about guidance? Spaces, adjacencies, reactions? Ryan.

[Brian Hilliard]: Hi, Matt, just a quick question on those house offices. Sort of page top North there as you go up in that section of the building, I know it becomes single loaded corridors and those are pretty big spaces. Are is there any concern that that's not really I wouldn't call it the most populated or. maybe the best place looking off to the east, just for student observation, does that matter? Does that weigh in at all? Should it be a little further to Page South as you go up in the building?

[Matt Rice]: I think it's a fair point, Brian. I think it's something that we definitely looked at and whether or not there's opportunity to shift down to this point in I think it's just trying to figure out that trade off in between some better visibility down here versus better visibility over here. I know we're only showing the fourth floor plan here, but as we move up in this area, I think it is a little bit more dense in terms of programs, so it may look a little bit more akin to what is down in this area. And I think as we have some discussions with the the high school administration as well, which we haven't had that programming discussion, that may come to light even a little bit more. So it's certainly something that's worth looking at as we go forward in the process. And I think it's aligned that type of thinking with the kind of conversations that we'll be having as we go forward.

[Rosemary Park]: And Brian, just so you know, another Another area that we have been looking at potentially locating the House office if it doesn't move all the way to like the very center of that floor plan, maybe trying to situate it a little bit closer to the central stair that connects the various floors so that as you come up, there is that visibility there. So it's as Matt noted earlier, you know, this is just the snapshot of where we were at PSR. but we're actively looking at efficiencies in the plan of where better adjacencies can occur.

[Brian Hilliard]: Great, thank you.

[Matt Rice]: I like to use the term when we go into the programming and folks that are in the program will probably hear me say this maybe too many times, but we anticipate being wrong in a lot of cases in this first version as we come in, and we really want the feedback from all the users to help guide the development of the plans. It is just a natural part of the process. All right. I'll shift forward to custodial and maintenance. Um, so again, this one is a little bit pragmatic and Ken made us underline the existing rodent issues, um, that are in the building to make sure that we were aware of it. Um, so we did that. Um, and, and we did work, um, and speak with Ken and his group about, um, the various needs for the building from an operation standpoint, as well as involving, um, Ryan Pike, who just joined, uh, the district, um, filling in for John McLaughlin's role. So we had a pretty good understanding of where things were from our PDP programming discussion. We did a couple of updates here as well in terms of what the picture of the custodial staff was. But, and then I think also what the loading dock program was. And so we're working with all that information as we move forward here. The listing of the custodial and maintenance programs that are here, really what's above this white space blank line here are the high school related custodial programs, which generally follow the MSBA guidelines aside from this technology support office. And then down below, these are sort of the district maintenance program components that are associated with central office. But since there's a lot of overlap in terms of some of the use of the space and where some of the concerns are, we're talking about those in the same breadth. So this does include one custodian's office, as well as a custodian's workshop. A custodian storage area, dedicated space for recycling and trash, which does align with LEED requirements as well. So it's good that the MSBA does designate program space for that. A general receiving and supply area, a general storeroom area, a network and telecom room, and a technology support office. So the network telecom room is the one that is included in the MSBA guidelines. Sometimes it ends up being what is known as the MDF or main distribution frame room where like the head end equipment for all the IT is located. Sometimes in smaller buildings you can put a desk for a staff member to sort of sit in that general area and there's enough room. This building is big enough where that room will not be able to accommodate a staff office technology for the high school. So that's what this office is dedicated for. It's worth noting that there are also some IT staff that are associated with central office that are not listed here, but will be covered under the district offices discussion. And then we have some office space from the facilities director and their administrative assistant, a workshop for district maintenance staff, as well as a maintenance office. So that's a snapshot. Go ahead.

[Rosemary Park]: Go ahead, Rosemary. Okay, sorry. I just wanted to also just note that this does not include any of the custodial closets or janitor's closets that you would see throughout the school. Those, because they're not really programmed space, those fall under the non-programmed space. So that grossing factor that makes up the non-programmed space that gets us to that total GFA, that gross floor area, those types of support closets will come out of that number. So there will be, and we've spoken to Ken and Ryan about this, but there will be several janitorial and custodial closets throughout the building as well.

[Matt Rice]: All right. Um, and then just to give an outline again of where we are. Um, so we're back on level three. I think it was more just a coincidence that a lot of these program spaces are located on level three. Um, but the dining commons is located here again at that central heart position. Um, so we are going to be locating the kitchen, um, as well as the servery in proximity to that, um, and loading and sort of the service, um, and storeroom areas. make a lot of sense to be immediately proximate to the kitchen area here. In this diagram, the kitchen ideally would back up to the service area, and we are currently working on that to get that adjacency correct. But this is the general location of where things are. Loading, in this case, is going to be off of the west side of the building. to be able to provide some additional area feasibility for large delivery vehicles and refuse and recycling vehicles to access the side of the building there as well. So that's something that, again, we've been actively studying and trying to find an optimal arrangement for to support sort of this main circulation area. So anything on...

[Jenny Graham]: Questions on custodial and maintenance. So Matt, I just wanted to go back to the guidelines, the overall guidelines page. We know that the proposed space is 2822 and MSBA allows 2671. So our variation is 151 square feet. And basically that's the dedicated tech support office because our building is big enough that we can't put that person in with the networking space. that's allowed. So that's the only overage in that category.

[Matt Rice]: Yeah, I'm seeing there's a 151 or maybe a 150 square feet. We'll figure out where that one square foot is.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, there's one square foot that's sort of floating in the- Unaccounted for. That we should figure out, but yeah, just to make sure they're consistent. Are there any questions about these custodial spaces?

[Matt Rice]: Or the existing rodent problem? can stay in quiet.

[Jenny Graham]: OK. Well, I think that is just about the end of our agenda. Did we want to just quickly cover sort of module four informationally, and then we will take a motion to adjourn?

[Adele Sands]: if I can keep this high level. So just very quickly at a high level, schematic design is the next phase that we are moving into. It's when the building design is refined from those color-coded block concept schemes that you've been used to seeing to a clear layout with rooms and walls that are generally in the place that they will be. when the building is constructed. This is really to ensure that the design is far enough along to price with confidence because we, at that point, the budget identified at the end of schematic design and submitted to the MSBA ahead of the report in February. That's the budget that this project must live within, and that's the scope that the MSBA's grant will be based on. So that's schematic design at a very high level. There are, you know, I think we talked a little bit about the timeline moving forward. I think some key dates here are, you know, between now and October 6th, this group will be working to finalize the building program and then that information will be used to inform the schematic design estimate and that the estimating process is anticipated to run from mid-December to early February and then that will be presented to this group at that time. The schematic design submission itself will be approved by the SBC in mid-February and then sent over to the MSBA no later than their February 24th, 2027 deadline, submission deadline, in order to make it onto the MSBA's Board of Directors meeting at the end of April. That meeting will be the one where they approve the project to move forward and give us the information on grant participation. Let's see, following that approval, another big date to mention is that the city vote is currently targeted for June 8th of 2027. That approval would move the project into the design development phase. So a lot happening between now and June 8th, less than a year. But that's the timeline for that. There are a few, like I said, this really, this phase is about updating, advancing, and finalizing a lot of the documents you've already seen on this project. But there are a few deliverables that I wanted to highlight here. just to, there are important pieces of the schematic design submission. The first to note is that the CM will be providing an estimate for the project at this point during, you know, that estimating phase I just talked about, they will be providing that estimate. And, you know, as the company that is, will be building the project, it's important to see the cost and understand the cost through that lens. That estimate will then be used to inform another key deliverable for this phase, the total project budget template. That's where soft costs and hard costs will be laid out and the project team's understanding of the MSBA's likely participation at that point will be broken out and that will help us begin that discussion with the MSBA to determine what their grant for this project, what their funding participation will be. And that conversation really starts after submitting the total project budget template. One final deliverable that I wanted to highlight here, and I think Matt Rice actually talked about it a little bit earlier. It's the DESI submission. And this is a submission that goes in at the same time as the schematic design. report, and it lays out the district's methodology for special education delivery and also shows all of the spatial adjacencies that support that methodology. Dessie will review it and provide feedback ahead of the MSBA's board meeting in April. But those were really, those are the highlights of the schematic design submission. There's a lot here. I'm sure you can read on your own time as well, but those are the key components, I think, that are important to mention at this stage. Any questions? Thanks.

[Jenny Graham]: Luke, did you have a question?

[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, no, I did have a question, but it's not related to the schematic design timeline or any of the upcoming steps. If anyone has questions on that, I'll move the floor and then you can return to me. I've got something separate to bring up.

[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions about the schematic design timeline? Luke, is your question about something on the agenda?

[Luke Preisner]: It is, yeah. So we've been talking about the space summary, and I'm glad that we're approaching it line by line and individual spaces. That's, I think, the appropriate level to start, you know, adjusting the size if the committee goes that direction, which I hope they do. So, you know, only the observation that all these spaces are driven by the eggplant and our current NHS project website in the document section links to a month, but it's the February. The Junior Ed Plan is available, but you really have to know where to look. It's buried in an appendix to the PSR. Even then, you have to know that it's there to find it. I'd like to make a motion that we present the current revision of the Ed Plan, whatever it is, on the first document, page that we have on our NHS project website. So I'd like to make that as a motion.

[Jenny Graham]: Can I just before you do that, let everyone know that there are some updates coming to the project website, including Luke what you're asking for. As soon as our director of communications is back from being out of office. he got married on Saturday so we're going to give him like just a little bit of time off and when he's back we will be doing just that so the people know where those like latest documents are in addition to like what was the submission so that that is coming. You're free to make a motion but I don't think it's necessary it's work that is planned.

[Luke Preisner]: Um, well, I'd still like to make the motion. I appreciate the council, but, um, just to have it on record. I think it's very important for the community to have access to the latest documents. Um, so, uh, hopefully someone seconds it and it passes, but I'd like to keep the motion. Thank you. And what's the motion? The motion is to adjust the project website such that the current revision of the ed plan is I'll say explicitly available through a link.

[Jenny Graham]: Is there a second? I'll second. OK. On the motion by Luke, seconded by Dr. Galussi, I will call the roll. Jenny Graham? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn? Dr. Galussi? Yes. Marta Cabral? Joan Bowen? Yes. Ken Lord?

[Kenneth Lord]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond, Maria Dorsey.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Brian Hilliard.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro, Paul Malone, Nicole Morell, Erin Olapade, Luke Preissner.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: So that is nine in the affirmative. Six absent, the motion is approved. Is there a motion to adjourn?

[Luke Preisner]: Motion to adjourn.

[Jenny Graham]: By Luke. Is there a second?

[Unidentified]: Second.

[Jenny Graham]: By Ken, I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Dr. Galussi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsey.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Brian Hilliard.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Paul Malone. Nicole Morell. Erin Olapade. Luke Prisner.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Eight in the affirmative, seven absent. The meeting is adjourned. Thanks everyone. Thank you. We'll see you in August.